Second Report on BREXIT by John Pedler, (former
British diplomat now a consultant based in France specialising in EU/US/Russia
relations. For the past two years he has been working in the UK and on the
continent to help keep the UK in the EU. He is the author of ‘Our Broken World
– in large part a study of UK/EU/US/Russia relations).

Arriving in Britain 6 months after the
referendum for the High Court hearings in December was ‘culture shock’. To my
amazement, the implications of any sort of Brexit for the UK’s foreign policy -
Britain’s place in the world - are barely mentioned. And this at a time when
the future of the EU and of the ‘West’ is at stake and polls suggest that some
75% of Britons want the UK to play its full part on the world scene. Yet none seem
aware that any form of Brexit would weaken the EU and the ‘West’ although the
UK’s prime national interest is to ensure that they are strengthened. This
contradiction goes unnoticed - no one was even talking of avoiding Brexit let
alone organising a campaign for continued EU membership.

Much
confusion even about an advisory referendum

Instead, on this my first visit since the
23 June referendum, I found a country in thrall to ‘leave’ as populist Prime
Minister Mrs. May leads the country to Brexit with steely determination. And
this with most of the media applauding Brexit, mistrusted politicians in a
quandary, widespread fear of ‘leavers’, and a public resigned to its fate bemused
by endless arguments about ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit. But of course what the UK
gets is in the gift of an unhelpful European Commission with the approval of
the European Court of Justice. Most surprising of all was the persisting ignorance
about the requirements of an advisory referendum – as this one was. There
is of course no obligation to give effect to the majority vote. On the
contrary, government has solely to consider the referendum campaign and then
act in the best interests of the UK.

On
the continent much concern at defection of the UK

In contrast, in France (where I live),
Germany, and Italy there is a pervading sense of crisis: nationalist populism –
Trump in the US, Mrs. May in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France, and neo-nationalists
even in Germany - all threatening the solidarity of the West. It is not only well-informed contacts in the EU countries and
in others like the US, who are alarmed. Our French plumber was typical when he asked
with some bitterness how ‘les Anglais’, loyal allies whom the French once
envied for their common sense, could possibly desert their EU partners at such a
critical time with Trump in the wings.

Trump’s
extreme uncertainty and the EU

For Donald Trump, even before taking office
on January 20, has already brought extreme uncertainty to the world with his
choice of advisers, his proposed Cabinet members, and with his disturbing contradictory
‘tweets’ about world affairs, impervious to expert advice – notably on NATO and
President Putin’s Russia. Exxon’s boss Rex Tillerson is even less qualified to
be US Secretary of State than Boris Johnson to be UK Foreign Secretary – and his
appointment led German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeyer to exclaim
‘ungeheurlich’ - outrageous. Ever since World War II the West has sheltered
under an American umbrella. Now Europe has to accept that it must summon its own
strength to face up to populism, be responsible for its own security, and pursue
its own vital interests irrespective of the US – with Russia first on the
agenda.

Putin’s
war by other means is against EU as well as US democracy

At least since 2007, when Fancy Bear hacker
was first detected, Putin’s Russia has been effectively at war with the ‘West’
– EU as well as US - using ‘Special Political Action’ (intelligence services
seeking political ends) to unprecedented effect: cyber attacks coupled with
false information spread through social media and subverting individuals with
concealed payments. Edward Lucas’ ‘Spies, Lies, and How Russia Dupes The West’ was
published in 2012 (prompting Russia to be dubbed a ‘katascopic state’ –
kataskopos = spy).

Russian
and FBI intervention can be considered decisive

There is now no real doubt that by far the
most successful SPA operation in history was ex-KGB Putin’s success in securing
the election of Donald Trump as 45th U.S. president with the help of
FBI chief James Comey (who will have known of Russian intervention when he too,
intervened). Paul Krugman, NYT 12 Dec. 2016, shows that Mrs. Clinton lost
Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by less than 1% and Florida by only a
little more yet if any three of these states had gone for Clinton she would be
president.It is all-but inconceivable
that their joint efforts on behalf of Trump did not alter the vote by more than
1%.

It is significant that it is the GRU, the
Russian military intelligence service, that is responsible for the coordination
of the role of the armed forces with the actions of the intelligence services.
Military power, which demands respect and creates fears, works in concert with the
covert work of the intelligence services – together they achieve the political
results that Putin’s government seeks. Putin’s uncooperative military action in
Syria is part of this ‘war’ against the West for the aggrandisement of
Russia.It is important to recognise
that Putin’s war by other means is far from confined to the US. He has already had
major successes promoting populist-nationalism in the EU. It is likely that
high on his agenda are the German and French elections this year (there are
suggestions, not confined to those made by Ben Bradshaw MP in the House of
Commons, that Putin’s attacks on EU democracy may have begun with the use of
highly sophisticated algorithms during the UK’s referendum campaign, targeting
specific constituencies to enhance the ‘no’ vote).

Trump
an unlikely Putin puppet

So Donald Trump will be ‘the Russian
president’ (remember ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ ?) while Russia wages cyber war
against the US. But this does not mean that he will necessarily seek a ‘reset’
for US Russia relations harmful to the US. Indeed Putin is likely to find the
45th President far from the puppet he would like. He too, could find
Trump’s policies impossible to discern for, an ignoramus in foreign affairs, Trump
is capable of tweeting one thing and its opposite the same day. He enjoys
keeping the world on tenterhooks. Trump’s one constant is what Trump believes
is good for Trump and his family – not what is in the best interests of the US,
though these may at times coincide. What Trump brings is uncertainty – and
uncertainty, in foreign affairs as in business, is anathema.

Putin’s
popularity over the Ukraine – it is also his Achilles heel

Putin, like Trump and Mrs. May, is a
nationalist populist – he won his popularity by opposing the not so secret
neo-conservative intervention in the Ukraine in 2014, a part of their SPA attempt
to create a US unipolar world ignoring EU interests. Remember neo-con US Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, and her ‘F… the Europeans?’ Here the State
Department cooperated with the neo-cons in the CIA in an attempt to make the
Ukraine a pawn in the creation of that ‘unipolar’ world long sought by the neo-cons
led by Vice President Dick Cheney and the PNAC (Project for a New American Century).
Perhaps Mrs. Clinton’s two worst mistakes were that vote for the invasion of
Iraq which led to the destabilization of the Middle East and half our troubles
today, and for permitting, albeit unwittingly, the comeback of the
neo-conservatives after they had been forced to lie low after Obama’s election.

For all Russians, the Ukraine is a vital
interest for security and historic reasons – Kiev is the home of Russia. But
Putin’s bellicose foreign policy – of which he is so proud - using both
Russia’s armed forces and his cyber war against the West is in fact contrary to
the prime national interest of Russia. As most Russians well know that is to
have the closest possible relations with the EU in order to give Europe in its
entirety far greater clout on the world stage – now even more essential with
the advent of Trump. This is Putin’s Achilles heel: it would be hard for him to
oppose a well publicised EU offer of such a partnership provided Russia ceases to
confront the West, coupled with a simultaneous offer to work out a plan to
respect that Russian special interest in the Ukraine. We must not believe Russian
polls vaunting Putin’s ‘immense’ popularity – he makes sure they do.

The
greatest danger to the UK, the EU, and the West: the conviction that Brexit is
inevitable

So both Putin and Trump are presenting
existential threats to the EU and the ‘West’. Obviously the UK must not desert its
friends and allies. But in the UK that mantra is ubiquitous: ‘the British people
have spoken and they want to quit the EU’. So it is unquestioned that ‘to go
against the people’s will is to flout democracy’ regardless of the fact that it
is daily becoming more evident that breaking with the EU is immensely
complicated and will absorb UK attention for years to come; and the fact that
the entire world is in crisis and needs the strongest possible Europe.Clearly Britain’s first task is to prevent
the EU unravelling because of a selfish quest for Brexit. And that includes
united action to counter Putin’s current efforts to subvert EU democracy.

Avoiding
Brexit is not ‘flouting democracy’: the vote not the ‘clear will’ of the
British people

But how is it that there is this astonishing
conviction that Brexit is inevitable and that ‘leave’ voters should be pandered
to while ‘remain’ voters are not just ignored but heaped with obloquy although
the electorate was all-but divided in half: 51.89% for ‘leave’ and 48.11% for
‘remain’? This is without taking into account the 5 million odd UK overseas
passport holders – the ones most affected by ‘leave’ – who had no vote. Indeed
the Economist’s Data Unit found that towards the end of 2016 more ‘leave’ than
‘remain’ voters regretted their choice – enough to sway opinion in favour of ‘remain’.
And this is also without taking into account either the many Labour
sympathisers who could not bring themselves to vote for ‘Cameron’s Tories’, or the
‘millenials’, disenchanted with boring middle-aged politicians, who often did
not even register to vote but who are now awakening to the theft of their
future as Europeans.

The
severely flawed campaign

Then, profoundly affecting the outcome, was
the campaign itself which was marked by deliberate misrepresentations by ‘leave’
– who notably failed to warn of the inevitably long drawn out daunting
complications of leaving the EU – and the striking incompetence of ‘remain’:
both the obscure Lord Rose’s campaign ‘Britain Stronger In Europe’ run by Will
Straw, and by ‘Labour In for Britain’ run by Alan Johnson. Much has been published
about these serious defects which are perhaps best summed up in John
Lanchester’s ‘Brexit Blues’ in the July edition of the London Review of Books.
My own, very similar, First Report on Brexit of 18 August 2016 is at
dipconsult.blogspot.fr.

Two incidents stand out – leading Brexiter
Michael Gove claiming, without evidence, that the Queen favoured Brexit. This
was particularly damaging to ‘remain’ given the Queen’s popularity among most
of the population. And the BBC permitting its widely viewed ‘Great Debate’ on
the eve of the referendum to close with Boris Johnson, the chief personality
for ‘leave,’ with his emotional appeal ‘make
June 23 Britain’s independence day’. This was followed next morning by arch-Brexiteer
American Rupert Murdoch’s full page headlines in his top circulation Sun: ‘We
urge our readers to beLEAVE in Britain’.

Indeed ‘remain’ was much hampered
throughout the campaign and still is by much of the UK press taking its lead
from Murdoch. The Daily Telegraph, the most influential quality paper,
vigorously supported Brexit and still does: its lead EU correspondent Boris
Johnson, like Trump in the US, was the key TV campaigner getting massive free
publicity for their populist aims.

As early as February 2016 many observers, myself
included, warned both ‘remain’ campaigns that they were concentrating on dull
economic arguments for staying in the EU while neglecting the powerful anti-EU
feelings of so many far from Whitehall that successive governments – both Labour
and Conservative - had overlooked. As in the US (and this got us Trump), too
many in the UK have been left behind by globalisation, impoverished by the 2007
banking collapse, and forced to take ‘zero hour contracts’. And few things are
worse than daily fear of losing your job. On top of this is that widespread
resentment at EU immigrants competing with Britons for limited social services
and NHS resources. In the US it was ‘keep America white’, in the UK it was keep
Britain British.

But it is not the EU but successive UK
governments, Conservative and Labour, that, mostly in the name of a misguided
‘austerity’, ignored this - losing touch with their voters and forfeiting their
loyalty. It seems that sufficient ‘leave’ voters blamed the EU for many of Whitehall’s
faults to explain ‘leave’s’ close referendum result.

For all these reasons, Mrs. May never did,
and does not now, express the ‘clear will of the British People’. And that is
without considering the wishes of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Avoiding
Brexit, the difficulties

So what can be done to prevent this determined
lady and the small clique around her, in defiance of that ever-increasing
evidence, resolutely invoking Article 50 and thus irrevocably setting the UK on
the road to Brexit?And dragging the UK
into years of painful all-absorbing negotiations to separate the UK from the EU,
thereby sacrificing Britain’s vital interests in the world for the nebulous,
never honestly described advantages of Brexit?

On the face of it there is no problem. If,
as expected around 12 January 2017, the UK Supreme Court demands formal
parliamentary approval before Article 50 can be invoked, all that is required
is for the more than 470 MPs of all parties out of a total of 650 to vote as
they did in the referendum for ‘remain’ and thus against such invocation. But,
in a snap non-binding vote called by Mrs. May on 8 December while the High
Court was still sitting, 448 MPs voted in favour of invoking Article 50 with
only 75 against. These are the only MPs to have ‘come out’ unequivocally
against Brexit. There is much fear of a backlash from disgruntled ‘leavers’ –
Gina Miller, the lead litigant contesting Mrs. May’s claim to invoke Article 50
on her own, has police guard after receiving death threats. Other lawyers and
their principals have been browbeaten. I myself found ‘leavers’ will not argue in
what was once the British way, but angrily condemn you for being unpatriotic,
undemocratic and spurning that ‘will of
the people’.

Why
could parliament vote to end its own supremacy?

Like every one, ‘remain’ MPs are aware of
this intimidation. And those from majority ‘leave’ constituencies fear losing
their seats so some are ready to sacrifice Britain’s interests. This partly
explains how MPs could actually vote to end by Act of Parliament the UK
remaining a parliamentary democracy as the High Court has ruled that it
is! Without parliament’s supremacy Prime Ministers could enforce populist measures
against parliament’s wishes. Yet all this anxiety is unfounded – just as
parliament can refuse to pass an Act authorising the invocation of Article 50,
so it can refuse permission for Mrs. May to call an early election under the
Fixed Term Parliaments Act, 2011.

A
crippling lack of information

All this also reflects that all-but total lack
of information about what is at stake internationally. Many, even MPs, are
calling for a second referendum once the terms Mrs. May gets from the EU are
known. This is mistaken for, whatever she may say, these will not be known
before she invokes Article 50, and after that, when what is on offer becomes
clearer, it would be too late.

This lack of information is due to that conviction,
not only in the UK but abroad, that Brexit is inevitable. This is mainly
because, for the first time, there is no effective parliamentary opposition to
the party in power (although Mrs. May’s Conservative parliamentary party is
deeply divided by its 180 degree turn from supporting ‘remain’ under previous
Prime Minister Cameron to mandatory support for ‘leave’ under her). And there
is no even informal popular grouping for ‘remain’ which could demand attention.

So it is virtually impossible to place
material showing that Article 50 can be avoided in the UK and foreign press.
For example, when I complained to the New York Times both their correspondents
in London made it clear that they had found nothing to cover, and the Chief
Political Adviser to the BBC assured me that it would give proper coverage
if there were any appreciable moves to avoid Brexit.

An
effective opposition essential: an unmissable opportunity for a Labour &
LibDem come back

There is though one obvious event which would
instantly ensure full media coverage making the UK’s predicament re Brexit known
worldwide. That is for a disciplined Labour Party to resume its ‘remain’ policy
during the referendum campaign. Jeremy Corbyn, its leader, has promised
determined opposition to Mrs. May’s Conservatives and it was he who made
possibly the best speech for ‘remain’ during the election campaign on 14 May –
notably calling for the UK to take the lead in reforming the EU wanted by so
many countries (he urged members to be more concerned with social justice than
remaining something of a capitalist club). All Corbyn needs to do now is to
lead Labour’s MPs in making a clear unified message opposing Brexit. Only
opposition to Brexit can put Labour on the right side of history for Brexit
will soon be seen as yesterday’s folly. Then Labour would right away become a
forceful opposition with a real possibility of returning to power.

Celebrities

And once there is forceful opposition to
Brexit, UK and world media will make it known both in the UK and in the world.
And once that happens, celebrities – far more influential than politicians -
will lend their support. One of them, highly respected for her international
concern, who had offered to back the case for ‘avoid’, withdrew because she did
not want to find herself alone. Yet her agent told me there were several others
on his books who would give their support if there were evident opposition to
Mrs. May. For example just a sportsman, an Olympic gold medallist, an actor,
and a best-selling author could do much to win over public opinion. If invited
there would be several more.

‘Remain’
MPs now well placed to persuade others to join them

As many Labour supporters already recognise,
the best hope for Labour to return to power is in coalition with the Liberal
Democrats, not competing for seats. At the 8 December vote 23 Labour MPs and 5
LibDems including their leader, ‘came out’ against Brexit, along with the 51
members of the Scottish National Party, 3 from Wales’ Plaid Cymru, and 3 from
Northern Ireland’s SDLP. Broad enough to encourage other MPs of all parties to
‘come out’ as the potential of Brexit for disaster becomes ever more apparent. Labour
would recover its roots and the Libdems would recover the support they lost by
their coalition with Cameron’s Conservatives instead of Gordon Brown’s Labour.

But if avoiding Brexit is to be generally
accepted it is imperative that Labour does not allow Mrs. May to steal its
clothes by trying to persuade ‘leavers’ that she has their interests at heart.
Labour (and indeed any ‘coalition’ for ‘avoid’), must convince ‘leavers’, who
mostly are its natural supporters, that they will demand that the government address
their grievances and will act with determination in government.

I
must conclude with three points – the first is
that Climate Change is by far the most important challenge that mankind faces
and Trump does not recognise this. So one of the most important tasks for the
UK within the EU is to work on this particularly with China which is well aware
of this threat.

The
second is to compare Mrs. May’s approach to a
Trump presidency with Mrs. Merkel’s. In an attempt to preserve the so-called
‘special relationship’ with the US, Mrs. May is ready to bow to Trump even to
the extent of arranging a state visit for him. This would be a nice feather to
add to his cap – but no guarantee that he would prove a reliable friend to the
UK. His approval of Brexit could be more closely related to his concern for his
golf courses in Scotland – as the Scottish government has discovered! Far
better is German Chancellor Mrs. Merkal’s pointedly warning: ‘yes’ to cooperation,
but only if Trump adheres to the norms expected of democratic states.

Thirdly – after my article of 2 November 2016 in Le Monde (about how Brexit
could be avoided) feedback suggested that the Commission – and indeed all
involved with Brexit, especially France and Germany with their elections this
year, would be so relieved if Article 50 were not to be invoked that the UK
would swiftly be able to negotiate the dispensations its very particular
position in the EU demands – dispensations that would certainly be refused in Brexit
negotiations. I suggest that some MPs should enquire if this can be confirmed.

About JP Diplomatic Consultancy

Our particular interest is in assisting those (probably in the media, academia, and in NGOs) who are encouraging the new U S administration to lead towards establishing at last that new era in international cooperation made possible by the end of the Cold War.

We believe that the planet cannot support this era of waste that began soon after Word War II. That means that capitalism - so effective in getting economic results - must be directed (by making it worthwhile) towards producing what is socially required to meet the existential challenges humanity now faces. Undirected capitalism leads to a reckless search profit from socially harmful activities. It is also largely responsible for the unsustainable age of waste we have lived through since World War II.

If the world is to move on from confrontation to cooperation and avoid the "endless wars" the Pentagon predicts over diminishing world resources, it will be essential to get the media to appreciate he issues. In all countries, politicians, the media and the public alike need to be persuaded of the need to get beyond the outmoded categories of "right or left", "progressive or conservative" and move away from traditional ideologies to a much more pragmatic world outlook. With the world for the first time facing existential challenges there must be a major effort to educate young and old alike - through the media, through schools and universities, through discussion with people of power, and in other ways. Much lobbying will also be needed.

While all countries have a fundamental national interest in working to resolve the immense and unprecedented challenges to humanity that all nations face, it will be hard indeed to avoid serious collisions in the jockeying for position. Further pinpointing areas of potential future conflict are urgently needed now.

And in particular, the U.S. will need a partner in a Europe - a post-Lisbon Europe with a single voice on the great matters - if Russia, China and the other major powers are to be persuaded that the policies of confrontation that have marked the last 8 years, are over, and that a cooperative approach to common problems must be pursued.

So high priority needs to be given for all measures leading towards European consensus in foreign affairs.